5 ms·

Puberty was considered the adulthood age for mellinia, that is suitable for marriage (and is still considered so in several places). Why is this a very controv

by o999 2y ago

Puberty was considered the adulthood age for mellinia, that is suitable for marriage (and is still considered so in several places). Why is this a very controversial topic?

shadowgovt 2y ago
Taboos are often controversial. And if he were a sociologist or anthropologist, published in the field with any reputation at all in it, who could speak on that complex dynamic over history and the interplay between environment, tradition, human biology, and social context, he might have a prayer of using reason to move the needle on the taboos in his own culture. But he's not. He's a professor in another field speaking way out on the deep end of a field he doesn't have the credentials to be taken seriously in. We all have freedom of speech, but academic professors are expected to uphold a level of rigor that most people are not, and his writings on this topic harm his credibility and therefore, indirectly, his ability to advocate for free software.
- fsflover 2y ago
  But does he have a right for his personal opinion in a free country?
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Of course. But he's using that right to say very public things that are very objectionable, in a space he understands poorly, and everyone else can use their same rights to call him on his nonsense. And when one is an academic, one's word carries weight outside one's area of expertise. For all the good he did for science education, a common criticism of Carl Sagan is he was an astrophysicist (damn good one) who dabbled in neurobiology, which was well outside his area of expertise---his oft-repeated "reptile brain" theory basically doesn't match to a contemporary understanding of neuro-anatomy and didn't when he wrote Cosmos either. But because he shared it from his platform and wrote a book on the topic, "humans are a fish brain wrapped in a lizard brain wrapped in a monkey brain" is an oft-repeated untruth. We hold those whose reputations and positions are built on knowledge more accountable to be right when they speak than we hold others. Stallman chooses to exercise his freedom of speech, and we choose to hold him accountable for his position on topics that have real consequences for people who aren't him.
    - fsflover 2y ago
      > and we choose to hold him accountable Is this your euphemism for "cancelling"? Go to the court if there's a crime.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        Canceling is not about criminal behavior. It's about the gap between the regulation of behavior the law puts on us all and individual's decisions about what they will tolerate. Freedom of association lives right next to freedom of speech in the Constitution. His right to say what he wants does not impinge on my right to think that every time he opens his mouth these days he sets the movement back. ... Besides, nobody in this story (including, I surmise, you) is actually against cancelling. Avoiding closed-source software because it doesn't align with the Four Freedoms is just cancelling. Cancelling is front-and-center in Free Software's toolbox.
        fsflover 2y ago
        Cancelling is punishing of an individual by the crowd without a fair process. It should not exist. Choosing your software is not cancelling.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        If you can slide a conceptual wedge between the free choice to use GNU over Microsoft because you believe in the Four Freedoms and the free choice to not work with FSF until they oust Stallman because you believe he's a creep, go for it. It's the same thing: personal choice intended to influence the shape of the world.
        fsflover 2y ago
        > and the free choice to not work with FSF This is your right, just like choosing the software. However, trying to force everybody to stop supporting FSF or to cancel Stallman without a fair process is very different and wrong.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
madahin 2y ago
Because children can begin puberty super early [1] Because puberty begin on average at 10-12 [2] The fact that some countries/cultures are okay with child marriage doesn't mean that it's not absolutely disgusting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty
- fsflover 2y ago
  It doesn't mean that discussing it must result in a cancellation of a person though.
  - deepl_derber 2y ago
    I agree, which is why it's fortunate that no one is or has suggested "cancelling" anyone for "discussing" things. The report's author(s) are advocating for removing RMS from positions of influence and authority from the free software community because he's advocating for child sex abuse and bestiality, harasses women, and is a shitty human being. Pretending that anyone ever has been jettisoned from their position or public life for "discussing" something - or that that's what's happening here - is insanely disingenuous.
    - fsflover 2y ago
      > because he's advocating for child sex abuse and bestiality He isn't. All your other accusations are baseless too.
    - mikrotikker 2y ago
      Why are you lying?
seanw444 2y ago
Because the arbitrary age we picked, by which almost nobody is yet fully physically nor mentally developed, is definitely the correct one. Non-sarcastically: Overton Window
deepl_derber 2y ago
[flagged]

by o999 2y ago

Puberty was considered the adulthood age for mellinia, that is suitable for marriage (and is still considered so in several places). Why is this a very controversial topic?

shadowgovt 2y ago

Taboos are often controversial. And if he were a sociologist or anthropologist, published in the field with any reputation at all in it, who could speak on that complex dynamic over history and the interplay between environment, tradition, human biology, and social context, he might have a prayer of using reason to move the needle on the taboos in his own culture. But he's not. He's a professor in another field speaking way out on the deep end of a field he doesn't have the credentials to be taken seriously in. We all have freedom of speech, but academic professors are expected to uphold a level of rigor that most people are not, and his writings on this topic harm his credibility and therefore, indirectly, his ability to advocate for free software.

fsflover 2y ago
But does he have a right for his personal opinion in a free country?
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Of course. But he's using that right to say very public things that are very objectionable, in a space he understands poorly, and everyone else can use their same rights to call him on his nonsense. And when one is an academic, one's word carries weight outside one's area of expertise. For all the good he did for science education, a common criticism of Carl Sagan is he was an astrophysicist (damn good one) who dabbled in neurobiology, which was well outside his area of expertise---his oft-repeated "reptile brain" theory basically doesn't match to a contemporary understanding of neuro-anatomy and didn't when he wrote Cosmos either. But because he shared it from his platform and wrote a book on the topic, "humans are a fish brain wrapped in a lizard brain wrapped in a monkey brain" is an oft-repeated untruth. We hold those whose reputations and positions are built on knowledge more accountable to be right when they speak than we hold others. Stallman chooses to exercise his freedom of speech, and we choose to hold him accountable for his position on topics that have real consequences for people who aren't him.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    > and we choose to hold him accountable Is this your euphemism for "cancelling"? Go to the court if there's a crime.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      Canceling is not about criminal behavior. It's about the gap between the regulation of behavior the law puts on us all and individual's decisions about what they will tolerate. Freedom of association lives right next to freedom of speech in the Constitution. His right to say what he wants does not impinge on my right to think that every time he opens his mouth these days he sets the movement back. ... Besides, nobody in this story (including, I surmise, you) is actually against cancelling. Avoiding closed-source software because it doesn't align with the Four Freedoms is just cancelling. Cancelling is front-and-center in Free Software's toolbox.
      - fsflover 2y ago
        Cancelling is punishing of an individual by the crowd without a fair process. It should not exist. Choosing your software is not cancelling.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        If you can slide a conceptual wedge between the free choice to use GNU over Microsoft because you believe in the Four Freedoms and the free choice to not work with FSF until they oust Stallman because you believe he's a creep, go for it. It's the same thing: personal choice intended to influence the shape of the world.
        fsflover 2y ago
        > and the free choice to not work with FSF This is your right, just like choosing the software. However, trying to force everybody to stop supporting FSF or to cancel Stallman without a fair process is very different and wrong.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

madahin 2y ago

Because children can begin puberty super early [1] Because puberty begin on average at 10-12 [2] The fact that some countries/cultures are okay with child marriage doesn't mean that it's not absolutely disgusting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precocious_puberty [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

fsflover 2y ago
It doesn't mean that discussing it must result in a cancellation of a person though.
- deepl_derber 2y ago
  I agree, which is why it's fortunate that no one is or has suggested "cancelling" anyone for "discussing" things. The report's author(s) are advocating for removing RMS from positions of influence and authority from the free software community because he's advocating for child sex abuse and bestiality, harasses women, and is a shitty human being. Pretending that anyone ever has been jettisoned from their position or public life for "discussing" something - or that that's what's happening here - is insanely disingenuous.
  - fsflover 2y ago
    > because he's advocating for child sex abuse and bestiality He isn't. All your other accusations are baseless too.
  - mikrotikker 2y ago
    Why are you lying?

seanw444 2y ago

Because the arbitrary age we picked, by which almost nobody is yet fully physically nor mentally developed, is definitely the correct one. Non-sarcastically: Overton Window

deepl_derber 2y ago

[flagged]